OPINION: BHS Teacher Contracts Don't Show Much Fiscal Restraint
Recent changes could cost the district more than the projected annual operating budget savings of the consolidated high school project.
Last month, the Bloomfield Hills Schools Board of Education approved a 3-year contract with the BHEA (Bloomfield Hills Education Association). As reported in the press, “Because of changes to health care plans, the district has determined that they will realize an estimated savings of $64,400 to $526,406 in school year 2012-2013, and $1,708,632 in the 2013-2014 school year.” These savings appear to be in line with reforms mandated by state legislation on school employee health care benefits funding.
The publicly distributed package for the June 21 BHS Board meeting says, “The savings from the tentative Agreement, as compared to budgeted increases, are $64,400 - $526,406 in 2012-13 and $1,708,632 in 2013-14.” This appears to read as if all the savings are due to the changes in health benefits mandated by the state.
The local press also reported, “For the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, teachers will see no salary increase other than for the top step, which will receive a one percent increase.” This statement is not correct.
As stated in the board distributed package, “(For) 2012-13; no increase in the salary schedule except on the top step; full steps; top step receives 1% more than the top step received in 2011-12. Estimated additional cost over 2011-12 = $1,321,570.” Similarly, 2013-14 yields a cost over 2012-13 at $1,063,333 – or $2,384,903 higher than 2011-12.
It appears individual teachers will continue to receive raises based on these seniority-driven schedules rather than merit. With the return to “full steps” the raises will be twice the “half step” increases received under the expiring contract. Apparently, there is no longer a need for the teachers to sacrifice even the pace of their increases. I presume administrators will be similarly rewarded.
These changes, agreed to less than a month after the May election, will cost the district more than the projected annual operating budget savings of the consolidated high school project. That vote authorized a capital bond with an annual tax cost of $4.2 million to save operating costs of $1.4 million annually.
So much for fiscal restraint.
In This article
-
Bloomfield Hills School District Central Administration Office
7273 Wing Lake Rd, Bloomfield Hills, MI -
Ken Jackson
8:34 am on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Mr. Roach,
Thank you for alerting us to the absolute outrage that some teachers may receive -- at best -- 1% raise. I am glad you standing watch.
Neal Charness
12:49 pm on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Mr. Roach: Do you have any idea how hard teachers work? We get email response well beyond school hours and there's tremendous effort on their part. How many people in the business community would get this low of a raise. Between no salary increase and health benefits it's probably a cut.
You showed your disconnect with reality during the bond issue. Can you please quit trying to bully the district and the teachers just because they don't kow tow to your views.
Linda P
11:07 pm on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Mr. Roach your diligent analysis and conclusions come as no surprise to me......you seem to have a better grasp on the BHSD finances than most board members.
PS: Pay no attention to Neal .....sounds like he has bond issue baggage.
Neal Charness
10:07 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
Regardless of issues between Linda and I it's important to focus on Mr. Roach's posting and his previous disconnect with financial realities. A good way for people to evaluate that is to click on his name and see his posts and form their own opinions. I've urged the same with Linda.
John's post just dumps on the teachers and jabs at the board. This sort of bullying went on for years by people like him and it's important to nip it in the bud. There's a difference between asking fair, honest questions and just picking at the board and our most valuable people.
J Arch
11:55 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
Unfortunately, John uses the couched term "appears" 3 times and "apparently" once in his piece. This is classic gadfly methodology of presenting opinion and guesswork and representing it as fact. John presents no data or calculations whatsoever to back up his presumptive statement "These changes, agreed to less than a month after the May election, will cost the district more than the projected annual operating budget savings of the consolidated high school project." I'm all for scrutinty and asking tough questions, but John's piece is pure speculation, and in my opinion, it is irresponsible in its presentation.
J. Wagner
Linda
5:47 am on Friday, July 13, 2012
John, I appreciate your continued involvement in discussing relevant issues effecting the BHSD. You present thought provoking concepts and challenge us to think and analyze instead of accepting spoon fed PR releases. There are many who benefit from the status quo and resist the change that is so essential to benefit our students, the most important constituents.
Howard Baron
9:05 am on Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Mr. Roach is correct in his statement that teacher's wages will be increased by approx. $1 mil. each year for the first 2 yrs. of the new contract. What he doesn't say is that these increases will be more than offset by a $2.8 mil. reduction in health care costs over that same time period. In total, this new contract will result in an annual cost REDUCTION to the district and will add to cost savings that the HS project will be bringing to the district over the coming years.
On top of that, discussions are already underway to develop a
jointly developed framework for an "alternative compensation" salary schedule to be implemented in the 2014-2015 FY.
Because of the reduced revenues that the district is facing, this cooperation between the BHEA and the administration to find solutions that address both sides interests is the fiscally responsible things to do.